Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of "injury (other than a disease)" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The dispute arose from a claim for compensation by Mr May, a former RAAF officer, who alleged he suffered adverse reactions, including vertigo, as a result of vaccinations received during his service. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the appellant) denied his claim, as medical specialists were unable to diagnose a specific condition or establish a causal link between his symptoms and the vaccinations.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr May's reported symptoms constituted an "injury" as defined by the Act, specifically under the limb of "injury (other than a disease)". This required the Court to consider whether the symptoms represented a physiological or psychiatric change that was sudden or identifiable, and whether the absence of a diagnosed pathology meant no injury had occurred. The Court also had to determine the proper construction of the Act in light of its text, context, and purpose.

The High Court allowed the appeal, reasoning that the definition of "injury" in the Act requires a disturbance of the normal physiological or psychiatric state of a person, which must be identifiable and, in the case of an injury other than a disease, be sudden. The Court found that while Mr May experienced symptoms, the extensive medical evidence, including the findings of numerous specialists and the Tribunal's reliance on Dr Loblay's evidence, did not establish a physiological or psychiatric change that was sudden or identifiable. The evidence indicated that Mr May's symptoms were not consistent with a diagnosed pathology or an immunological reaction to the vaccinations, and therefore did not meet the threshold for an "injury" under the Act.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court and substituting an order dismissing Mr May's appeal to that Court. The appellant was ordered to pay Mr May's costs of the appeal to the High Court.